 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHY DID THE TITANIC SINK?
TWO THEORIES. |
|
|
|
The exact details of the damage to the bow of Titanic were discoved during Expedition 1996. Paul Matthius and asscociates of Polaris Imaging, Inc. used a sub-bottom profiler to asses the damage. This is an electronic instument that sends and recieves low-frequency sound waves through the water colomn and sediments on the ocean floor. It then interprets the reflected sound waves to create graphic and digital images of objects hidden in sediments. The images showed that within the bow of the titanic there were 'a series of six thin slits, some only as wide as a human finger'. Amazingly, the damage totalled no more than about 3.6 square metres! These findings totally contradicted the more popular belief, that a 95m gash had been torn into the side of the ship. |
|
|
|
The two most popular theorys for why the Titanic sank, as mentioned in 'Titanic-online.com', are known as the 'brittle steel theory', and the 'weak rivet theory'. In this section of my report I will summerise the evidence for both theorys, and then form conclusions about which theory I agree with most, and why.
Before I begin to do this, I feel that Timothy Foecke, chief metallurgical investigator on the Marine Forensics panel of the Society of Navel Architects and Marine Engineers, had a valid point, when he said; |
|
|
|
'The details of the metallurgy of the design are not going to remove the culpability of driving 24 miles and hour through an iceberg field after ignoring warnings. What it may influence is the details of how fast she sank.' |
|
|
|
What Foecke meant, was that we cannot blame the whole Titanic diaster on the metallurgy of the steel. The reason the ship sank is that it hit an iceberg, and the two theorys that I will present are significant to the fact that had the steel or the rivets been of better quality, then the Titanic might not have sank so quickly. I think that this is an important point, but had the Titanic stayed afloat for a few more hours, a lot less people would have lost their lives that night. Therefore it is important that both theorys are studied, so that the same mistake can never be made again in the future of steel manufacture. |
|
|
|
BRITTLE STEEL THEORY. |
|
|
|
This theory was first proposed by Canadian metallurgists after the analysis of a small piece of hull plate that was recoved from the Titanic during a 1991 expedition. Researchers from the University of Missouri-Rolla and Bethlehem Steel Corporation also agreed with this theory, when they discoverd a large volume of silicate slag in specimins of steel hull plate. Slag is a term used to describe impurities found in processed metals, and silicate slag is an important constituent of wrought iron, but not of steel because it is a type of glass and can make the steel brittle. The researchers also carried out physical tests on the Titanic's steel plates, and found that, at -2 degrees Celsius, (seawater temperature), the steel failed by brittle fracture during impact, creating cracks in the plate itself. These are valid conclusions that led them to supporting the brittle steel theory, although they also acknoledged that weak rivets may also have contributed to the hull damage.
You can see exact details of impact tests and tensile testing on the Titanic's steel in the 'Physical Tests' part of this report. Many of these tests were taken from the findings of the University of Missouri-Rolla researchers, so the results are likely to be biased towards the brittle steel theory. |
|
|
|
WEAK RIVET THEORY. |
|
|
|
This theory was first proposed by members of the Marine Forensics Panel (SD-7), after the recovery of a hull plate from the RMS Titanic during expedition 1996. This theory is favoured by researchers from the National Institute for Standards and Technology and John Hopkins University. Their research showed that most of the rivets recovered from the Titanic also contained large amounts of slag that made them more brittle, and therefore, more likely to snap off at the head upon impact with the iceberg. Timothy Foecke, who was involved in this research said; |
|
|
|
'It is possible that brittle steel contributed to the damage at the bow due to the impact with the iceberg, but much more likely that the brittle steel was a factor in the breakup of the ship at the surface.' |
|
|
|
Foecke is saying that he agrees with the weak rivet theory, and suggests that this was the main reason that the rivets were broken and the ships structure can apart upon impact. He is also saying that he thinks that the brittle steel theory is responsible for the ship crumbling and the cracks progapating through the steel after the collision. In other words, he thinks that both theories are responsible for the sinking of Titanic. |
|
|
|
WHICH THEORY? |
|
|
|
It is clear that both theories have been thorourly investigated, and both have good arguments as to why the Titanic sank within 2 hours of the collision. I think that the results from the impact tests and chemical analysis carried out by the researchers at the University of Missouri-Rolla are very conclusive, and I am not disputing the conclusion that the Titanic steel could not withstand the impact tests due to it being brittle at seawater temperatures. This shows conclusively that the Brittle Steel Theory is correct, but I also think that weak rivets were present and were broken upon impact with the iceberg. My conclusion from this section of my report is that I agree with Foecke, when he says that both theorys are true for differant reasons.
After reviewing and debating both theorys, the Marine Forensics Panel (SD-7) concluded that the cause of sinking was largely due to the failure of the rivets that fastened together the Titanic's hull. Metallurgical analyses are continuing and the National Institute of Standards and Technology and John Hopkins University. This further analysis will hope to shed better light on the influence of steel and rivets on the sinking of Titanic. |
|
|
|
Chemical Analysis. |
|
|
NEXT SECTION: |
|
|
|
|